I, meanwhile, cannot deny that I’ve concluded otherwise, situated myself outside the product and rejected it, and therefore don’t have an unbiased viewpoint here either.
Basically there are two kinds of men. The ones who’ll walk the women back to their dorm after class. And the ones who make it necessary for someone to walk the women back to the dorm after class. Is it really that hard to say to guys: “Be like that first group.”
Some are in both groups. I’m an officer of a club that had to throw out a creepy guy who tried to walk women home, with no one else present, when they really didn’t want to walk alone with him.
(And yes, there were other things about him that were creepy this wasn’t a “he’s a guy” thing, it was a “he’s that guy” thing.)
But there is also two subgroups of that first group.
The first is the ones who walk the women back to their dorm, say “stay safe” and leave for their dorm room, or the library, or wherever.
The second is the ones who think that his grand gesture of walking the woman back for her safety needs to be rewarded with some special consideration - at least a date, because he’s a “nice guy.”
I write this because I spent a phase of my life in that second group, wondering why I wasn’t getting any dates even though I was in that nice guy group. I finally realized that while “nice guy” could be part of my portfolio, “entitled” wasn’t exactly a good match with it, and started feeling a lot better about myself and the women I could appreciate as people without feeling like I had earned anything from them.
Dropping in this show, a TED radio hour, that was playing on the radio earlier as very timely to this thread. Really good. Stayed in the car to keep listening good. Not much there that would surprise anyone who has participated in this thread but still.
I’d say there’s also another division.
There are men who will walk the women home without expecting to be paid for it, while thinking that it’s really unfair and improper that women have to live in a situation in which this is a good idea..
And there are men who will walk the women home, without expecting to be paid for it, but while thinking that it’s right and proper that women should always have a man to guard them if they go out at night.
Yeah, I do sometimes wonder why we as a society should be satisfied with such a fundamentally defeatist “fix” for this situation, where it’s taken for granted that women’s behavior needs to be constrained by having to wait for a trustworthy man to escort them somewhere, for their own safety.
Maybe a better solution would be to have all the responsible trustworthy men (who I think we’re all agreed far outnumber the other kind) escort their fellow men from place to place at night, to make sure they don’t attack anybody? And then the women can just walk by themselves where they want to walk whenever they damn please. [/s]
Not surprising, no: that’s the same policy advocate (Richard Reeves) linked and quoted in the OP of this thread, making pretty much the same points and arguments.
The “ones who make it necessary” largely don’t exist; the idea that the bushes are full of homicidal rapists is a fantasy. If a woman is going to be attacked (men are more likely to be attacked, but nobody cares as this thread shows), it’s probably by somebody she knows wherever she’s going. Not by random strangers. “Stranger Danger” isn’t real.
You also forgot the third group: the ones who neither bother playing escort, nor attack anybody.
Huh? Nearly a quarter of victims of violence are attacked by strangers. 8% of murdered women are murdered by strangers. Just because a woman is about twelve times as likely to be murdered by someone she knows as by a stranger doesn’t mean that strangers pose zero threat.
And again: men are more likely than women to be attacked primarily because men don’t constrain their movements and autonomy the way women are expected to do in order to avoid danger. When women do get into higher-risk situations, they are at least as likely to be attacked as a man is. Women don’t have some kind of magic cloak that protects them from harm from strangers.
We all agree that it’s scandalous that society doesn’t care much about the violent victimization of gang members and drug addicts and bar fighters and the other socially disapprobated groups that tend to skew the violent-victimization trend more male. But that lack of caring isn’t because they’re men, it’s because they’re to some extent social outcasts.
Another group whose high victimization rates skew the attack-victim population much more male are police officers. Society seems to care quite a bit when police officers get attacked. (Not to mention public figures; recall all the brouhaha about Charlie Kirk getting shot? People cared a bunch.)
It’s called “being a woman”. Attacking a man is acceptable in a way attacking a woman isn’t.
Just look at this thread; the very idea that men might deserve any sympathy at all is just unthinkable.
No, the police are rarely attacked, it’s not an especially dangerous job at all.
That’s not true. There’s been a mix of perspectives; some offering sympathy and understanding, and some not.
In fact, that seems to be the sort of attitude you’ve been against in this thread; taking the worst attributes displayed by some people and responding as if everyone acted that way.
I met one.
My wife noticed it, the girl he was following noticed it, I didn’t see shit, but followed along when my wife said something was going down. Like I suggested before, he wouldn’t be chased off, he was determined to do something to that girl. If it wasn’t for these women being alert to the danger, this guy would have attacked her, no fantasy, just brutal reality for the 20 something woman walking home from the subway at 2am.
So, I’m sorry that your feelings are hurt that women are suspicious of unknown men, but I’ll take those hurt feelings among all of us men over one young lady being raped because she thought stranger danger isn’t real.
Heh. Hadn’t realized. To me this presentation hits better. Strong on the interaction of gender with class and race. (and that caring about male inequality has to include also caring about these other inequities), on the toxicity of the phrase “toxic masculinity”, on the idea that there is no single way to be “a man” anymore than there is a single way to be a woman.
In fact, this whole thread is about people taking seriously the current societal issues that negatively impact men and boys, and discussing what to do about them. We were at something like 450 posts of mostly nuanced and empathetic discussion before somebody unfortunately mentioned the man/bear online chatter and DT started derailing the thread with typical immoderate tantrumming about how Everybody Hates Men And Nobody Cares If They Live Or Die. As I said, if that tantrumming would cease we could get back to the serious discussion of genuine problems confronting men and boys, which everybody here does care about.
(Oh FFS, it’s getting to be like arguing with the late unlamented ex-poster @StarvingArtist, with all the halfassed sweeping generalizations and no evidentiary backup.) No, while it’s true that LEO ranks only about 22nd in the list of most dangerous jobs, it stands out for having a disproportionately high percentage of injuries due to deliberate attack, rather than accidents as in most of the dangerous occupations. That’s part of what helps skew the victim-of-violence statistics male.
I wouldn’t go 100% that way, either. There have been a couple posts recently that have been very dismissive.
Pulling this here rather than continuing it is the education thread (which I pulled from here 
)
I find this mindset very troubling, and is part of what feeds into the extreme reactions we see.
This in the context of young male Trump voters who listed ‘having children’ and ‘getting married’ as key markers of their view of ‘success’, if anyone can’t be bothered to click through.
Apparently it’s entirely unreasonable to view prioritising those over a whole list of other options as potentially correlated, especially within that group, with ‘manosphere’ related viewpoints, what with the whole ‘tradwife’ obsession. No, this is what a group of young male Trump voters have said they want, so society should automatically try to fix this by helping all said young men obtain wives and children without any consideration that maybe, just maybe, some of them may have extremely unhealthy views of what marriage and parenthood is and shouldn’t really be encouraged to pursue it without examining those views.
True, but also we can’t expect people to listen patiently when being told “you’re wanting the wrong thing” or “you’re wanting this thing the wrong way”.
The fact is that for a very long time, both young men and young women have been encouraged to think of marriage and children as a life goal that they need to “get”, rather than one of several different life paths that might work out for them but isn’t totally within their control. And both young men and young women have been sold the notion that a spouse is first and foremost a means to that end. So if you have to resort to luring or persuading or even tricking somebody into marrying you, well, all’s fair in love.
This rather unhealhy perspective worked for a long time because it was economically necessary for most young people, young women in particular, to get married. Now that more and more women are seeing that option as genuinely optional, more and more men are facing the reality that they probably can’t get married unless some woman really wants to marry them. And they’re unsure what to do to maximize the chances of that.
Of course, there are many men who are able to leverage comparative economic advantage to seek brides from developing countries, where many young women do still need, for financial and cultural reasons, to marry.